Yesterday my university, the University of Oslo, celebrated its 200 year anniversary …

The University of Oslo has played a pivotal role in many of the major changes in Norway over the last 200 years. How the UiO has changed Norway

The day started—for me at least—with this years Kristine Bonnevie Lecture on Evolutionary Biology, which this year featured an introduction by Richard Dawkins on the importance of communicating science. He made a very inspired and passionate talk on how to communicate science to the public, something he is very good at himself. He also went a bit Feynman on us, describing the beauty and poetry of science. Which obviously is a good thing. Then followed a talk by Elizabeth Hadly who spoke about climate change and its effect on mammals, also a very good talk which I unfortunately missed the middle of due to losing the streaming feed and having to get in to the overcrowded auditorium. The lectures ended with a panel debate and Q&A with the two speakers and the physicist Jim Al-Khalili. The topic was again communicating science, and a lot of good questioned were asked and skilfully answered by the panel.

Also, Dawkins was awarded a honorary doctorate by the faculty of mathematics and science on Thursday together with a number of other people. Full list here (in Norwegian)..

Then followed one party after the other, and an outdoor concert with the Norwegian band “bigbang” and a few other artists. A long and good day

Photo from the Q&A session at the lectures. In the photo the panel from the left: Jim Al-Khalili, Richard Dawkins and Elizabeth Hadly.

Photo taken at the concert later the same evening.

Thought it was time to change the theme of the blog to something more readable and minimalistic. The old theme was fine too, but haven’t been updated for several years and is bound to break down as WordPress is updated. The banner-image is from my wallpaper folder, and I cannot remember where I got it from, probably some fantasy art page.

Every now and then you run into one of those organic food enthusiasts. The organic food industry makes grand claims about more nutrition, less toxins and being environmentally friendly, and many people buy into it. Most of these claims are unsupported by scientific research, at least at the level such benefits are claimed.

I am not against making sure the food we eat is healthy, and I always like to support environmentally friendly initiatives, but this industry, in the same way as the cosmetics industry, has everything to gain to keep up its image in the general public. This is after all business as usual.

The alternative medicine industry are notorious liars, and the lies are usually easy to spot unless you either have invested interests in maintaining the lie, or are incredibly gullible. However the organic food industry is a bit trickier to handle. They have one thing in common with the cosmetic industry, the grand claims are exactly the claims we want to hear about the products we buy (and they have the price tag to go with it). Unfortunately it is hard for people in general to dive into the research, especially because most people don’t have much interest in scientific research even though it is often easily available online if you know how to separate it from the junk. Luckily there are people that do this work for us. I’ll provide some links at the end.

Nutrition and taste

One of the main claims the organic food industry makes is the claim that their produce is more nutritious. This is inconclusive if you look at the research, and by that I mean scientific research where proper methods are used like a proper statistical method, proper data and so on. Most of what you find out there does not qualify (see Dangour et al., 2009). The argument I often hear by people is that organic fertilizer is better for the plants because it is more natural. However as a physicist I know that a molecule or atom is exactly the same regardless of what source it comes from. This argument represent a view that is simplistic and reeks if mysticism, just like most claims made in alternative medicine. Yes, the nutrition content of the produce depends on the availability of nutrition to the plant, but saying the organic farming principles are the sole reason for an increase in nutrition is a bit like claiming a red Ferrari is faster than a blue Lada because the Ferrari is red.

It is also often claimed that organic food taste better. Problem with this argument is that anyone at any time can pick two pieces of fruit, and they can taste differently. It is also well documented that our senses are linked together, and taste is a complex experience influenced greatly by vision, smell, our expectation and even hearing. Quite often people will pick conventional grown food as better tasting because they are usually from better kinds of crops. Another silly idea of the organic food industry is that they often use “older” variations of the plants as it is supposed to be “natural”. But the bulk of the food we eat come from plants and animals that have been genetically manipulated through several millennia with farming and selective breeding. None of them exist in nature.

Toxicity

Another common claim is that the lack of pesticides makes the food less toxic. Well, it is shown that organic food contain less pesticide residue (obviously), but the definition of “toxic” is as much about concentration as it is about the chemicals. There are regulations in place to ensure the content of pesticide is well below toxic levels, so “toxic” is an abused buzzword more than anything. In addition, the plants we eat have evolved defence mechanisms themselves which are natural pesticides. These are also potentially toxic. They are produced on demand to an extent, and are sometimes made in organic food in larger quantities than in conventionally grown food. In addition, the natural pesticides are the dominant pesticides in our food by a fairly large margin. Another point is that food with less added preservatives spoil faster, so products made from organic food can be less safe, a point that counterbalance the pesticide argument. Apparently organic food is  for instance not supposed to be exposed to ionizing radiation either (which is used to kill of micro organisms). The public’s irrational fear of the word radiation in all forms never seize to amaze me. It is another thing that most people don’t understand, but that’s another rant altogether.

Over all, the risk aspect of the organic versus conventional food is complex, and does not consistently favour organic or conventional methods. In addition, and maybe most importantly, the risk is marginal and near non-existent! These arguments does, in my opinion, in no way justify the increased price. And the claims often made indicates to me that the motivation is financial rather than a concern for public health.

Environmental considerations

There is evidence that organic food production is sometimes more environmentally friendly, however this is not always the case, and the methods used to reduce environmental impact are not exclusively connected to organic production methods. Many traditional farming methods, that also have been incorporated into organic production, are also used in conventional food production. One issue with organic farming is that the use of natural fertiliser is not free of environmental impact, both due to the fact they’re less efficient and thus are used in larger quantities, and the fact that they contain roughly the same chemicals as artificial fertiliser simply because those are the chemicals the plants need. Run-off is an issue regardless of method. This is in any case a more complex issue. Policies regarding environmental impact should be applied to all farming, and many places they are. It is commendable that the organic food industry apply some on their own, but this does not way up for the mumbo-jumbo.

In addition, there is the issue of production efficiency and the general availability of food worldwide. Organic food is in my opinion mostly a symptom of the rich west and our collective fascination with hypes and trends and new ideas. Food production is also a political and ethical issue. The focus should be on a balance between environmental considerations and worldwide food availability. The western commercialism aspect of the organic food industry as well as the fact that they walk a fine line when it comes to their claims and their ability to back these up, is enough for me to be suspicious and ultimately avoid these products.

Some Resources

• Dangour et al., 2009, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
  Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review
• Giles J, 2004
  Organic FAQ (Question 2: Is organic food better for us?)
• Grinder-Pedersen L, et al, 2003
  Effect of diets based on foods from conventional versus organic production on intake and excretion of flavonoids and markers of antioxidative defense in humans.
• Caris-Veyrat C, et al, 2004
  Influence of organic vs. conventional agricultural practice on the antioxidant microconstituent content of tomatoes and derived purees; consequences on antioxidant plasma status in humans.
• Leclerc J, et al, 1992
  Vitamin and mineral contents of carrot and celeriac grown under mineral or organic fertilization.
• Chen MC, 2005
  Organic fruits and vegetables: potential health benefits and risks

Related links:

• Organic Food Quality, Neurologica Blog

(Updated 27.02.2011)

Today, October 10th 2010, or 10.10.10, which is when written in binary: 101010 = 42.

So happy 42 day!

First post new blog. Old one only had 3 anyway. Screw that one